Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

GIA introduces Proprietary Cut Report

Rockdiamond

Rockdiamond

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
10,297
From an email received today:

Proprietary Cut Program

Laboratory clients can now participate in GIA’s Proprietary Cut Program for diamonds with branded cut names. GIA grading reports for diamonds submitted as part of this program will include the branded name of the proprietary diamond cut with the diamond shape and cutting style description (see image below).

This enhancement to GIA diamond grading report services is offered at no charge.

For more information or to apply for this program, contact your client services representative. You will be asked to submit the required supporting documentation, including a diagram of the facet arrangement and a signed Proprietary Cut legal agreement.
 
How would this show up exactly?
 
Up till now, AGSL is the only lab recognizing proprietary cuts.
With GIA entering that market, it might be nice news for certain cutters trying to get a "brand name" for their stones.

Might also work for "SuperIdeal" stones.
 
Thanks for the info, Rockdiamond!

Does this mean they will also laser etch the cut name as part of the service?
 
OoohShiny said:
Thanks for the info, Rockdiamond!

Does this mean they will also laser etch the cut name as part of the service?
Click to expand...


I know they can do this ( we've had our logo laser inscribed by GIA) but I doubt they'll do it free.
 
Sounds like they are playing catch up now to AGS. All things being equal, I still prefer the more detailed info on an AGS report than GIA.
 
Well this might backfire as the main reason to go with AGS is to get the 000, and anyone who doesn't go with AGS is suspect. The main appeal would have to be patented cuts that sacrifice brilliance for other qualities.
 
ChristineRose said:
Well this might backfire as the main reason to go with AGS is to get the 000, and anyone who doesn't go with AGS is suspect. The main appeal would have to be patented cuts that sacrifice brilliance for other qualities.
Click to expand...

I believe it's very likely GIA will take a different tact from AGSL regarding brilliancy measurments.
Of course, you may be right about this backfiring....but I think AGSL is more exposed here.
Hopefully, there will be room for both.
 
The proprietary cut report doesn’t look like it comes with a cut grade or any kind of evaluation having to do with the cutting. It's just a name for unique facet arrangements. It wouldn’t apply to branded ‘super ideal’ stones for example. Those would still be round brilliants.

Within some obvious limits like avoiding deceptive statements or using trademarked terms on behalf of someone other than the trademark holder, they'll write anything on the girdle you want and that will fit. They'll be happy to do this in conjunction with most of their grading services, not just this one.
 
denverappraiser said:
It wouldn’t apply to branded ‘super ideal’ stones for example. Those would still be round brilliants.
Click to expand...

I'm curious why you'd say that Neil.... don't see why not.
As an example-- some of the branded cushions are going to be called "Cushion Brilliant"- that in itself does not preclude a second, proprietary name.
So it can be a Round brilliant with a proprietary name. Surely cutters of Super Ideal stones will provide specific measurements, ASET requirements etc....
 
When I see the phrase 'super ideal' used, it seems to refer to a 57 facet modern round brilliant. They're using the term to point out that they're doing a super good job of it. Maybe they are, but the facet arrangement is the same as the crummy job. GIA now uses generic terms like 'modified square brilliant cut' for what most would call a princess cut in order to avoid treading on trademarks. It's the same reason that you would expect a chemistry lab to call a Coke a cola beverage. It looks like now they'll be willing to call it a Coke (assuming Coca-Cola is the client and they ask for it).
 
You may be right.....although the "SuperIdeals" we see offered here on PS all have unique "brand names", GIA does use the term "proprietary diamond cut"....so maybe the cut has to be demonstrably different in facet pattern/design.
We shall see!
 
Remember Esperanza? GIA called her a "Mixed Modified Double Rose Cut" and then used a diagram supplied by the cutter for the plot because they didn't have anything anything like it (which is completely blank since it's flawless). Huh?
Esperanza 15.jpg
 
I think proprietary and branded need to be trademarked. As in HOF or ACA or CBI. The term super ideal is more a trade term. Interesting about lasering the girdle with anything... so how do you un-laser it if you no longer want the brand?

For the experts....
What happens if a diamond has a brand name lasered on the girdle. The stone gets traded-in and purchasee by a different vendor. Do they repolish the girdle and re-laser a new logo?

For example... let’s say I have a HOF stone. Let’s say I trade it in to WF or HPD and they sell only ACA and CBI, respectively. What happens to that HOF stone? Do they sell the HOF stone? Do they repolish the girdle?
 
Polishing out a laser inscription is possible for a good cutter to do without damaging the stone
 
Miki Moto said:
For the experts....
What happens if a diamond has a brand name lasered on the girdle. The stone gets traded-in and purchasee by a different vendor. Do they repolish the girdle and re-laser a new logo?

For example... let’s say I have a HOF stone. Let’s say I trade it in to WF or HPD and they sell only ACA and CBI, respectively. What happens to that HOF stone? Do they sell the HOF stone? Do they repolish the girdle?
Click to expand...
This answer may not apply everywhere, as our operation is somewhat unique, but any diamond sold as Crafted by Infinity was crafted by our team. In cases where we acquired a nice make (LK, HOF and 8Star among others) that specimen will get a full makeover prior to being sold under our label.

There's more. Grading labs occasionally have misfires with their inscription machines. Standard procedure is for the lab to alert the producer, have a local polisher erase the error and redo it. But my Antwerp colleagues are so pedantic they have a standing order for any such errors: Stop what you're doing, return the diamond over 5,000 miles to us, our polisher will remove the error, and we'll return it those 5,000 miles so you can try again. This may seem insignificant but it's a point of pride for certain cutters, and may be interesting as it relates to your questions.
 
Quoting Whiteflash here.

Whiteflash said:
Grading metrics have so far been developed for Round, Princess, Oval, Emerald, and various proprietary cuts including certain Cushions, and cut grade reports are available for each.
Click to expand...

They have a proprietary princess, others have proprietary cushions and Asschers sold with AGS 000. Not sure about Emeralds and Ovals.
 
@John Pollard Thank you... very helpful answer. If I may ask one more question...
Following the same trade-in stone example... I assume the newly polished stone gets re-graded by a lab with a new report that shows the new vendor's logo on the report. The old report then becomes invalid as that diamond (in its previous state) no longer exists.

Do the labs link the two reports to follow that diamond's provenance? Or will this appear as a new stone, recently graded. Which by the way, I am perfectly fine with purchasing existing stones, newly polished, as my guess is many stones (and colored gemstones) are recycled. My question is more about the supply chain of older stones and if the labs track their history and link report numbers in their massive database.

Thank you again for your insight.
 
@Miki Moto You're welcome. The short answer is no, but there's a twist coming.

Diamonds returning to factories for re-cut today frequently came to market decades ago. They may not have passed through a lab, or went through another lab, and scan technology didn't exist anyway. Even now, labs keep independent records - there's not a central database - and tech scans are primarily about a diamond's external measurements which get altered in re-cutting, creating a new record.

A producer can alert a lab that an incoming diamond has been there before. With that info the lab can frequently verify it with type and natural attributes. But there are cases where clarity (logically) changes with re-make. Even apparent color can "change," and fluorescence is a grading wild card.

The twist? Demand for traceability is growing for a number of reasons. GIA has already launched a blockchain pilot in China. http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=62302& It's clear that much is now possible. The extent of what's applied, and where, is another topic.
 
Miki Moto said:
My question is more about the supply chain of older stones and if the labs track their history and link report numbers in their massive database.
Click to expand...
Great question Miki.
AS John alluded to, GIA may have plans to implement more traceability- but for now, I do not believe they are using such methods. Garry H may disagree BTW
In cases where we have re-cut stones, my feeling is always to let GIA have the stone as a "fresh look"
Many times the grade will change- as the owner, we always hope for an improvement in color or clarity- which sometimes does happen.
Of course, it can go the other way as well.

But there was the story of a Cushion Brilliant which was damaged during settiing.
It was an S-T color.
We re-cut to radiant and got.....are you ready?
Fancy Yellow!
A full FIVE grade improvement.
 
Rockdiamond said:
In cases where we have re-cut stones, my feeling is always to let GIA have the stone as a "fresh look"
Many times the grade will change- as the owner, we always hope for an improvement in color or clarity- which sometimes does happen.
Of course, it can go the other way as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that info. On the stone grade change... wow, a 5 grade change.
I am doing something similar with GIA for my own knowledge. There have been posts recently about AGS vs. GIA grading, SI stones, changes in grading strictness, etc..

So, on a whim, I decided to send my earring studs (AGS graded) to GIA for them to grade. My earrings were graded by AGS back in 2003, and all these recent posts got me curious. I expect the GIA report to come back similar if not exactly the same as the AGS report, but wouldn't it be something if it went up or down 2-3 grades in clarity and/or color.

It's also good to know from @John Pollard each lab keeps their own reports and does not share so it will truly be an independent grading. I was worried GIA would just call AGS and ask for the lab report of my diamonds which would be like cheating to me. =)2
 
Miki Moto said:
Miki Moto
Click to expand...

We frequently see one grade differences between AGSL and GIA. Many cutters/dealers "cert shop".
Especially on borderline stones- for example a J that might lean towards K, or an SI1 that might also be seen as a VS2.
Some businesses will submit to GIA, and if they don;t like the grade, try AGSL.
My experience is that AGSL is sometimes slightly softer ( easier ) on color.

But I've never seen more than a one-grade difference between GIA and AGSL on polished diamonds that were not re-cut.
We got the five grade difference due to a recut- and both grades were from GIA.
 
I don't see what the big deal is. GIA is finally getting with the times and adding the brand name of a diamond to the lab report:
Proprietary-Cut-Program_231237.png
But they are still not grading diamonds for light performance. As such, they remain more than a decade (13 years to be exact) behind the AGS Laboratory.

But it's a nice touch, really it is, and it's a step in the right direction since people who are paying for a branded diamond (some of which have no real additional value beyond the name) seem to prefer to have the brand name of the diamond on the girdle edge. It certainly is a benefit in terms of insurance replacement.

Obviously, there are some brands of "super ideal cut diamonds" which exceed the grading standards of the laboratories, which do not (yet?) take optical precision into account as part of the grading process. The good news is that those vendors tend to provide their own proof that their diamonds exhibit a higher grade of optical precision, ASET Scope, Ideal Scope, H&A images...

And now, they can finally have their brand name recognized by the GIA on the diamond grading report! It's like hell thawed out and the ice has melted :cool2:

[I'm not buying John Pollard a new computer if he just blew coffee all over the keyboard]
 
Miki Moto said:
I think proprietary and branded need to be trademarked. As in HOF or ACA or CBI. The term super ideal is more a trade term.
Click to expand...
This is correct. In order to get a proprietary report from AGSL you have to show proof of your ownership of the trademark. The lab does not actually enforce your brand criteria. That is up to the merchant and their vetting process when ordering a proprietary report to make the determination if a certain stone meets their specifications and qualifications. The consumer can then cross reference the brand on the proprietary cert with whatever the merchant publishes or represents the brand attributes to be.

I do not know the ins and outs of the GIA policy but I assume it is aimed more at the increasing variety of fancy shape branded cuts, and those would not come with any overall cut grade anyway, since GIA does not yet provide that info on fancies. With regard to using GIA proprietary report for "super ideals" it would appear to be self defeating as there would either be no cut grade, or it would appear as Excellent as opposed to Ideal since GIA does not use the term.
 
I don't know Bryan- ACA ( and other "super ideals") is a known brand- and having it on both GIA and AGSL reports may increase the audience.
OTOH-if there's any discrepancy between GIA and AGSL on the grade it would complicate things.

Todd Gray said:
But they are still not grading diamonds for light performance.
Click to expand...

Hi Todd!
There are really good reasons for GIA avoiding this pitfall. LP is not an absolute- so a truly representative LP grade would need to be far more than a single number.
On this specific, I think AGSL is missing a very important boat.
ETA- the issue is more one of market saturation. AGSL has taken a narrow perspective on LP- you may argue that's what's needed- but it seems to me they are eliminating a wide swath of very desirable stones with LP that might be different. Just as an example- The Original Radiant Cut- which is now defunct. But at a point in time Stan Grossbard was working hard to find a common ground with AGSL to come up with standards that would work. Never happend- Stan sold out and retired....
 
Last edited:
E63C52C3-EC03-46CC-AE46-7225CCB4B346.jpeg @Rockdiamond Hi! My stones came back from GIA and you are correct.. the clarity and color changed by one grade. I am surprised though that GIA graded them higher. I had read GIA is more strict with their grading so I thought for sure my stones would come back from GIA worse than the AGS grade.

Also, in case any of you are interested, now my stone has two laser inscriptions on it, my original HOF and GIA just added theirs too.
They are now Frankenstein tattoo stones (I have never liked these stones but that’s a whole different thread).

GIA lasered the GIA report number on it, and that is in addition to the HOF laser. I guess they must do that now with all stones they grade as I do not recall asking for the laser. I’ve attached the little mini summary report from GIA and they do make a note in the Inscription section both lasers as FYI but I’m sure you have seen it all in your business. I guess if the stone were a branded cut, that would also be on the girdle too.

Both stones were F, SI2. Now both are E and one is a SI1. I don’t think these little changes are profound though.

I did it out of curiosity and found this very educational for me.
 
The claim that AGS is softer is debatable. It may be that when GIA slips toward the upside people mentally balance it out with all the times GIA slipped to the upside bu, it may be that people just are trained to notice more with an AGS report, and it may be that if a dealer doesn't like the way GIA slipped, they might send the stone to AGS and cross their fingers, meaning more AGS reports that consumers actually get to see are soft.
 
Bumped into Phil Yantzer (Peters brother) who is a senior dude in GIA lab world. Asked him about the rules - the stone must be a non generic facet pattern. It is up to the GIA legal dept and the submitting party to be included or not.
So no 57 facet rounds and generic princess, cushion etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top